Partly allowed

Madini Philips , Philip v. the State of A.P.

Telangana HC5 Sept 2023CRLRC/1575/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a criminal revision, confirming the conviction for theft and cheating. However, acknowledging that 18 years had passed, the court reduced the sentence of rigorous imprisonment to the period already served while maintaining the original fine.

What did the court decide?

Revision dismissed; conviction confirmed; sentence of rigorous imprisonment reduced to period already undergone; fine upheld.

Madini Philips , Philip Vs the State of A.P. — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

BAIL SLIP : The^{Petitioner/Accused was directedto be releasedon bail by the} order of the High Court daled^{29.07.2011 in Crl.R.C.M.P.No.2321 OF 2011in} Crl.R.C No.1575 OF^2O11.

¶3

[^32ee ]

¶4

IN THE H]GH COURT^FOR THE STATE^{OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶5

TUESDAY,THE FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW THREE

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^{E.V.VENUGOPAL}

¶8

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO:^{1575 OF 2011}

¶9

Criminal Revision Case under Sections^{397 & 401 of Cr.P C. against the} Judgment dated 23.07.2009 made in Crl.A.152^{of 2007.on the file of the Courtof} the Family Court cum Addl. Sessions^{Judge, Nalgonda.}

¶10

Between:

¶11

Madini Philips @ Philip, S/o Jogaiah, aged about^{55 years, Occ:AgricultureRl/o} Kanur Village, Bhongiri Mandal, Nalgonda^District.

¶12

...PETITION ER'APPELLANT/ACCUSED

¶13

AND

¶14

The State of A.P., Police Thurkbpally, Represented^{by its Public Prosecutor,} High Court of Andhra Pradesh,^Hyderabad.

¶15

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner :SRl. RAMESWARI MASINENI

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent : PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Rep., by

¶18

Mr. VIZARATH ALl, ASST., PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶19

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL

¶21

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1575 2011

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

The present criminal revision case is filed aggrieved by the order passed in Criminal Appeat No.152 of 2OO7 dated 23.07.2OO9 on the file of the Family Court-cum-Additional Sessions Judge, Nalgonda.

¶24

A charge sheet came to be filed against.the petitioner herein for the offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 of Indian Penal Code, 19OS (I.p.C.) and he was tried for the aforesaid offences. The case of the prosecution is that appellant / accused has committed a theft of portable Colour Television u,orth Rs.7,OOO/- from C.E.C., Centre Room of Grampanchayat Office on 08.O5.2005 during night time. On receipt of complaint from^p.W. 1 and p.W.s., a case in Cr.No.2O of 2OO5 has been registered by Sub_Inspector of Police, Thurkapally. After completion of the investigation, the police filed charge sheet which was taken on file as C.C.No.399 of 2005

¶25

-w

¶26

¶27

After taking cognizance of the case, complying^with the mandatory provisions and on appearance of the^accused, the Additional Judicial Magistrate, Bhongir; examined^the accused under section 251 Cr.P.C. and when^the accusations constituting offences^punishable under^Sections 457 and 380 I.P.C. was put to him, he denied the same and claimed to be tried.

¶28

In support of its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws. I to 6 and gotmarked Exs.P. l to P.6. M.O.1 to M.O.3 were also marked.

¶29

After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein he denied the evidence on record. However, no oral evidence was adduced.

¶30

After appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Magistrate found the accused guilty of the charges under Sections 457 and 380 I.P.C., and \ con\icted the accused-to undergo rigorous imprisonment for

¶31

¶32

¶33

a period of three months and a fine of Rs.100/- on each count.

¶34

Aggrieved by the sarne, accused preferred Crl.A.No.l52 of 2007 before the Family Court cum Additional Sessions .Iudge, Nalgonda. By its judgment dated 23.07.2OO9 the appellate Court partly allowed the appeal by setting aside the sentence imposed under Section 457 LP.C., and confirmed the sentence imposed under Section 380 I.P.C., by the trial Court. Challenging the same the present revisirin is filed.

¶35

Heard learned counsel for the revision petitioner/ accused and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-Statb and perused the record.

¶36

1 \

¶37

There is concurrent finding of both the Courts below with regard to guilty of the revision petitioner/ accused and the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/ accused has also not proven anything, which would discredit the evidence. Therefore, there is no interference warranted as far as conviction is concerned, but with regard to the

¶38

¶39

"r.7'

¶40

sentence, it may be mentioned that the offence took place in the year 2005 and almost 18 years have passed and during this period the revision petitioner/accused must have repented for what he did. In these circumstances and in the interest of justice, it is expedient to reduce the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone by the revision petitioner/ accused while maintalning the fine imposed by the trial Court.

¶41

The Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the conviction imposed by the trial Court, which was confirmed by the appellate Court. However, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence under Sections 457 and 38O I.P.C., is reduced to the period already undergone by the revision petitioner/ accused while maintaining the sentence of fine imposed by the trial Court against the petitioner/ appellalt/ accused.

¶42

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, sha_ll stand

¶43

closed.

¶44

Sd/. T.^SRINTVAS DEP UTY REGISTRAR //rRUE coPY/' Cn sEcrffi^oFFlcER

¶45

To' Addl' sessions^{Judge' Nalgonda'} ior tht^{state or reransana at} i. T[?,t33,'i""ts1'J'i""E^{l'l"Jil;]i'sh} ';'i . BI1^{#?i .t3'''ll"'orMASTNENT'Advocate IoPUC]}

¶46

Two^{CD CoPies} ot tetlam

¶47

\ l

¶48

HIGH COURT DATED:0510912023

¶49

ORDER

¶50

CRLRC.No.1575 of 2011

¶51

{ T\E STA r4r
:) (.(
3 zl iiJV zt;z:
t pz
o.,
.>.
1t

¶52

DISMISSING THE CTI. R.C

¶53

+"ffc.}
w-
L3

Madini Philips , Philip v. the State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madini Philips , Philip v. the State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr.K.Rajeswar Rao,Hyd and 2 Otrs Vs Public Prosecutor,Hyd and Another

G.Rajendra Kumar Vs M.Durga Malleshwari and 3 Others

A.Ananda Reddy Vs the State of a.P., and Another

Ambati Venkateshwar Reddy, Vs the State of A.P. Rep., by Its Pp

Gundelly Mallesh Vs the State of A.P

Sri G.Yesupadam Vs the State of Ap., Rep.by Its P.P and Anohters